Sunday, 30 October 2011

District 9 (2009) is the feature film debut of director Neill Blomkamp. Two decades ago an alien craft settled above the South African city of Johannesburg. The Aliens aboard the craft, seemingly stranded, settled in an area under the ship known as District 9. District 9 has now become a poverty stricken slum.

District 9 has a similar premise to The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951) with an alien craft arriving in the middle of a built up area. It could be said that District 9 is a modernised version of this premise. However District 9 dose differ drastically, the aliens are not on earth to bring a message of piece, they are simply stranded.

Fig 1: The Ship above Johannesburg

Another similarity with The Day the Earth Stood Still is the films focus on the way the aliens are treated by humanity. The Day the Earth Stood Still uses aliens to express a fear of atomic warfare. District 9 uses its aliens to express fears of racism and any form of segregation. This can be observed in the films illusions to the plight of black South Africans during the apartheid.

However the film is not simply an out-dated critic of the apartheid, "it’s about the legacy of that hateful regime, how its insidious influence has produced a country where the previously disenfranchised black citizenry are beginning to turn on an even more deprived social group: immigrants" (Lane 2009).

Fig 2: Genuine Apartheid South Africa Racist Sign

Fig 3: Poster used to promote District 9

The film is extremely satirical in its approach, particularly at the beginning. However it transitions seamlessly into its more serious moments “the film's tone moves easily from the comic to the cruel” (Landesman, 2009). The unapologetic politically satirical tone of the film is reminiscent of Sci-Fi cinema of the 70’s & 80’s “Perhaps we're witnessing a new dawn for politically engaged sci-fi and horror” (Huddlestone 2009).

The visual style of the film draws from a number sources to create something unique. The film is partially cinema verite, part mock documentary, and there are also some more traditional sequences particularly the ending. The interview segments of the film are reminiscent of the TV series The Office (2001-2003). Despite a relatively low budget, the special effects prove that CGI can be as effective as practical effects. The CG aliens seemed to have been created with as much care and attention as the practical sets they inhabit.

Monday, 24 October 2011

I have been attempting to get a better understanding of Jean-François Lyotard’s ideas on meta-narratives. More specifically I want to explore the idea of The American Dream as a meta-narrative. I then want to show how the American dream, it the 1930s to the 1950s, was represented by comic book heroes.

I have discovered an interesting essay by Jonathan Erdman who is looking for a meta-narrative in the bible. He gives a digestible explanation of metanarrative in his introduction that uses the American Dream as an example.

We might say that a metanarrative is a grand narrative that has explanatory power. It is a reference point into which one fits their own story. We see this at work in the contemporary situation as the United States and other western nations seek to spread freedom, democracy, and capitalism worldwide. We are working under the assumption that these things have a universal explanatory scope that can bring prosperity and meaning to other countries; that if these other countries would only use the American story as their own metanarrative then they, too, can find life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

This paragraph (below) also jumped out at me; Erdman is explaining Lyotard’s theory on narrative culture.

He describes a "narrative" culture - a culture deriving its meaning from stories. Lyotard discusses “popular stories” where the “successes or failures” of the hero “either bestow legitimacy upon social institutions (the function of myths), or represent positive or negative models (the successful or unsuccessful hero) of integration into established institutions (legends and tales). Thus the narratives allow the society in which they are told, on the one hand, to define its criteria of competence and, on the other, to evaluate according to those criteria what is performed or can be performed within it." (20)

This documentary is a massively in depth interview with the writer of Watchmen Alan Moore. From 0:18:26 to 0:22:35 he talks about the central idea of Watchmen, it seems to chime well with postmodernist theories.

I have made some notes of various relevent points raised by Moore in this documentary.

Watchmen used the clichés of the superhero format to try and discuss notions of power and responsibility, in an increasingly complex world.

We treated these fairly ridiculous super human characters as more human than super. We were using them as symbols of different kinds of ordinary human beings rather than super beings.

There were quite a few things about Watchmen that chimed well with the times. To me perhaps the most important was the story telling. The world that was presented didn’t really hang together in terms of liner cause and effect. It was instead seen as a massively complex, simultaneous event with connections made of coincidence and synchronicity. I think that it was this world view if anything that resonated with an audience that had realized that there previous view of the world was not adequate for the complexities of this scary an shadowy new world that we were entering into.

I think what Watchmen offered us, if it offered anything, was a new way of perceiving the environment around us plus the interactions and relationships of the people within it.

Postmodern Theory or "Postmodernism":
I will attempt to be consistent in using "postmodernism" to refer to a group of critics who, inspired often by the postmodern culture in which they live, attempt to rethink a number of concepts held dear by Enlightenment humanism and many modernists, including subjectivity, temporality, referentiality, progress, empiricism, and the rule of law.

Jean-François Lyotard: Introduction to The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge

The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951) is a massively influential sci-fi classic by director Robert Wise. The development of atomic weaponry has made humanity a threat to the stability of the rest of the galaxy. A humanoid alien name Klaatu arrives on earth in a flying saucer with his giant robot servant Gort. He is on earth to warn the nations of the world to desist in there war like ways or be destroyed.

Fig 1: The Arival of Klaatu

Klaatu is looked upon with fear by the majority of humanity after he escapes the custody of the US Government. Klaatu is eventually killed by police but is resurrected by Gort. It is at this point in the story that parallels with the life of Jesus Christ becomes blatant, if it wasn’t already. This was very controversial at the time, the film makers were forced to add a line confirming the existence of god. However the idea of updating the Jesus myth to a 1950’s setting is extremely interesting “Robert Wise looks at the Atomic Age and wonders: What would Jesus do?" Croce (2009).

Fig 2: Klaatu's Final Speech Before Ascending

The film could also be interpreted as a criticism of the way the United States views its own interventions (Korean War). Perhaps Wise is trying to demonstrate the hypocrisy of imposing morality on foreign cultures using threats and intimidation. Or perhaps a less cynical interpretation would be more accurate. Maybe the film is simply attempting to illustrate the importance of global harmony, “the film holds out hope for the United Nations that has yet to be fulfilled” (Canavese, 2008).

The film has some very impressive Special effects for a 1950’s film. The initial flying saucer landing on The National Mall is particularly impressive. The slick, simple and classic design of both the ship and Gort the robot look fantastic.

Fig 3: Flying Saucer on The Mall

Despite a few cheesy dated moments The Day the Earth Stood Still, with its political themes, great story and characters, remains relevant, interesting and entertaining.

Saturday, 15 October 2011

Best Worst Movie (2009) is a documentary about the making of the supposed worst movie of all time Troll 2 (1990). Troll 2 has become a cult classic and is loved rather than loathed by a dedicated fan base. The child star of Troll 2, Michael Stephenson, directed this documentary.

Fig 1: Michael Stephenson

Stephenson begins the documentary in a clever way by introducing, without context, small town dentist George Hardy, a man so friendly even his ex-wife likes him. He is actually one of the stars of Troll 2 but this is not revealed until after his introduction. After the introduction, Hardy’s mother is asked, what did you think of George's movie? At this she bursts out laughing and the audience is compelled the laugh with her. This is a great way to introduce people to Troll 2 especially if they haven’t seen it before.

The Phenomenon of Troll 2's popularity is explored fairly extensively it this documentary. There is no real definitive conclusion, however it is suggested that because the film was made with such genuine passion audiences respond positively. The fans of Troll 2 are very genuine in their love for the film; it is not an ironic joke, “It’s as if the movie’s lack of self-consciousness allows them to shed their own” [Adams, 2010].

Fig 2: Crowd of Troll 2 Fans Gather for a Screening in Toronto

This documentary works because it treats the subject matter in a sympathetic way. It is not cynically mocking Troll 2, its cast, crew or the fans who love it. Although many of the people interviewed are presented in a humorous way it never feels nasty or disrespectful. It is celebratory and attempts to deconstruct what it is about Troll 2 that makes it so popular despite its poor quality.

Monday, 10 October 2011

I have done a small exercise to help me understand postmodernism. Using Phil’s example ‘The Apple, Auschwitz & The Incredulous Frenchman’ as a template, I have attempted to show how the comic book series Watchmen by Alan Moore is a good example of postmodern deconstructionism. This will also be a possible subject for my essay.

Tuesday, 4 October 2011

﻿Lost in La Mancha (2002, Keith Fulton, Louis Pepe) is a documentary that chronicles the doomed production Terry Gilliam’s The Man Who Killed Don Quixote. The Man Who Killed Don Quixote was an ambitious project that went awry after various budgeting issues, extreme weather, and actor health problems.

The documentary is well constructed in that it explains Gilliam’s vision of what the film was intended to be, then proceeds to show how it all went wrong. The film is made using various interviews from both before and after the fact, as well as footage from behind the scenes and rehearsals. The film is embellished with various animated sections in the style of Terry Gilliam’s work on Monty Python.

Fig 1, Screen Cap from the Animated Segment of Lost in La Mancha

It could be suggested that the main subject of the documentary is Gilliam himself, more particularly the way he works. Gilliam has a reputation for taking on troubled productions and, normally, persevering. The documentary dose a good job at championing Gilliam‘s determination to put his vision on film. A more eloquent way to summarize Gilliam’s fortitude is by saying that "the only person who has jousted at more windmills than Don Quixote seems to be Terry Gilliam" [Cook, 2003].

Fig 2, Gilliam on the set of The Man who Killed Don Quixote

Watching Gilliam and his crew in their determination to get the film made whilst knowing the outcome is almost painful to watch. The documentary poignantly draws parallels between Gilliam’s struggle and the Don Quixote character. Gilliam’s acceptance of the reality of his situation means the film is dead; similarly, Don Quixote dies once he accepts reality.

Lost in La Mancha is a fascinating insight into the behind the scenes world of filmmaking. It leaves the audience with a new appreciation for Gilliam, the art of film making, and a pining for what might have been.

Captain Hashim leads a crew of pirates who roam the Arabian Oceans on their frigate, The Isis, in search of lost treasures & adventure. The Sultan and his imperial fleet also patrol the ocean seeking new conquests and the elimination of piracy. Captain Hashim and his crew have achieved notoriety because of their frequent run-ins with the Sultan and his fleet. These altercations occur for one reason; Hashim has something the sultan wants, a map. According to legend a mad prophet, Abdul Alhazred, drew the map almost a century ago. It is said to reveal the location of a lost Ancient Egyptian city berried by the ocean. The city is believed to contain all the knowledge and power of the old gods.

Character Bios

Captain Hashim (Hero)

Captain Hashim is strong willed, witty and brave, or arrogant and reckless, depending on whom you ask. Although Hashim is a pirate he lives by a moral code, he doesn’t kill, and never steals from the poor. Hashim Loves the freedom the Ocean provides him. He enjoys out-witting the Sultan and his fleets. Hashim stole Alhazred’s Map from The Sultan who has been hunting him ever since. Hashim wants to decipher the map and find the lost city only to satisfy his curiosity. However he is conflicted about his quest, what if his efforts are simpley playing into the Sultans hands? What truly awaits him in the lost city, dose he really want to know?

Horus (Sidekick)

Horus is the loyal avian companion of Hashim, he is a sparrow who is often found perched on Hashim’s shoulder. Because Horus is small, fast and can fly he is useful for both scouting and relaying messages over long distances. He is more sensible than Hashim and often attempts to discourage his more reckless or daring decisions, always to no affect.

The Sultan (Villain)

The nameless leader of the Empire known solely as ‘The Sultan’ is swift, brutal and unforgiving in his pursuit of power. The acquisition of power by way of conquest is all that The Sultan cares about. He is a methodical tactician as well as a formidable warrior. He hates pirates especially the crew of the Isis. This is mainly because Captain Hashim is the only person who regularly out-smarts him. The Sultan believes passionately that deciphering Alhazred’s Map and finding the lost city will give him unlimited knowledge and power. He intends to use this power to conquer the world.

Sunday, 2 October 2011

Captain Hashim leads a rogue crew of pirates who roam the Arabian Ocean on their frigate, The Isis, in search of lost treasures & adventure. The Sultan and his imperial fleet also patrol the ocean seeking new conquests and the elimination of piracy. Captain Hashim and his crew have achieved notoriety because of their frequent run-ins with the Sultan and his fleet.

Character Bios

Captain Hashim (Hero)

Captain Hashim is strong willed, witty and brave, or arrogant and reckless, depending on whom you ask. Although Hashim is a pirate he lives by a moral code, he doesn’t kill, and never steals from the poor. Hashim Loves the freedom the Ocean provides him. He enjoys out-witting the Sultan and his fleets. He hates The Sultan for attempting to take away the freedom he loves.

Horus (Sidekick)

Horus is the loyal avian companion of Hashim, he is an Arabian Falcon who is often found perched on Hashim’s shoulder. Horus is useful for both scouting and relaying messages over long distances. He is more sensible than Hashim and often attempts to discourage his more reckless or daring decisions, always to no affect.

The Sultan (Villain)

The nameless leader of the Empire known solely as ‘The Sultan’ is swift, brutal and unforgiving in his pursuit of power. The acquisition of power by way of conquest is all that The Sultan really cares about. He is a methodical tactician as well as a formidable warrior. He hates pirates especially the crew of the Isis. This is mainly because Captain Hashim is the only person who regularly out-smarts him.